ORDER

This Revision Petition No.1656 of 2019 challenges the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) dated 30.01.2019. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed First Appeal No.12/2019 with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited Consumer Welfare Fund and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur Fourth (‘the District Forum’) dated 08.10.2018.

2. As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 76 days in filing of the present Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in I.A. No.11509/2019, the delay is condoned.

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he boarded the Petitioner’s bus from Ajmer to Jaipur and presented Rs.110 to the bus conductor. The general fare for the journey was Rs.146. With 30% concession being Senior Citizen, the reduced fare was calculated at Rs.108. The Complainant requested the conductor to return Rs.2, as he had paid Rs.110, but the conductor refused. The fare calculation of Rs.110 was fixed by the ticket machine. He alleged unfair trade practices and sought compensation for the overcharge of Rs.2. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum regarding a discrepancy in fare charged by the Petitioner for a bus journey and sought refund of Rs.2/- along with interest, compensation and costs.

5. In reply filed before the District Forum, the Petitioners/ OPs averred that no unfair trade practices were involved and that the fare was calculated automatically by the ticket machine based on existing fare structures. The fare adjustments were made in multiples of Rs.5 according to an office order dated June 2015. The system was designed this way to handle practical issues, such as the lack of exact change and to ensure that fare collection runs smoothly. For instance, if the fare is Rs.107, only Rs.105 would have been charged. The fare adjustments, though small, were part of a broader system where such variations ultimately balance out over time, with some passengers paying slightly more and others slightly less, depending on distance travelled. The OPs denied any excess charge or misconduct and argued that the conductor had acted correctly per rules. Therefore, the OPs claimed that the complainant/ respondent’s request for compensation was not justified.

6. The learned District Forum vide order dated 08.10.2018, partly allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners/OPs as under:

“ORDER

Therefore, by accepting the complaint of the complainant, it is directed the respondent to pay the excess amount of Rs.2/- collected by the respondent from the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its collection i.e. 28.02.2017 to the complainant, within a period of two months.

Besides above, a sum of Rs.2,500/- as damages towards mental pain etc. and a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards litigation charges be also paid by the respondent to the complainant within two months from today.

On non-compliance of this order within two months, the respondent is liable to pay an interest @12% per annum on the above said amounts to the complainant till realization.

Remain prayers of complainant is not accepted.” (Extracted from translated copy)

7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioners filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission vide order dated 30.01.2019 dismissed the said Appeal with following observations:

“Heard the Appellant. The concerned Order of the District Forum and Circular were perused.

The situation has not been cleared, under which law the Circular dated 12.06.2015 is issued. The recovery of excess amount from fixed amount is unfair trade practice under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and in this condition, the collection of excess amount on the basis of Circular cannot be justified